the new leadership wants to repeal the bil[a imlus your b calls. next. . l l

host: speaker of the house of john boehner will be making a statement in about 90 minutes. the death toll listed at 6. 13 others injures. d. the fbi is heading up the investigation appear. yesterday's shooting has tor pulled aeric can

vote on the health care bill that was set for wednesday. rep gabrielle giffords critically wounded in an assassination attempt. judge roll among those killed, along with a nine year-old girl. this from the "richmond times dispatch" -- a tragedy for the entire country. the phone numbers will be on your screen. 202-737-0001 is our line for republicans. 202-737-0002 for democrats. for independence, the number to call is 202-628-0205. our first call is from atlantic city. richard is on the telephone. good morning to you. good morning . caller: thank you very much for

taking my call. first of all, i would like to give my condolences and sad feelings for all of the injured people in arizona. it is really a tough day for us here in america, and i just wanted to comment very briefly if i could about what the sheriff in the county spoke about yesterday. did you watch any of the news conferences? host: we did. caller: he talked a lot about the vitriol and the negative remarks being made in congress right now. i am hoping as americans we will set aside some of that stuff. not to point the finger, the last thing we want to do is point the finger, you know, things like, with all due respect to this mama grizzly, hunting and fishing

and targeting officials. the job-killing health care bill. endingn't it be the job- health care bill? i think we need to take some of that conversation of our malts of this killing, because i think we are making it too passe for people who might be on the mental illness and it to hurt people innocently. host: bloodshed puts a new focus on vitriol and politics. the house was set to vote on a new republican majority proposal to repeal the health care law that ignited opposition from the tea party.

sayingay, eric cantor the vote has been postponed it in light of what happened in arizona. our phone lines are open. 202-737-0001 for republicans. 202-737-0002 for democrats. you can send us an email or join us on twitter. twitter.com/cspanwj. "bloodblath in arizona." other headlines from "the new york times" -- a turning point, but in which direction? "pages began disappearing from the web. one with sarah palin's

crosshairs map, and which included congressional districts with gun targets on them. odds are pretty good deathat neither of these had much to do with shooting in tucson. but scrubbing them from the internet could not erase all the evidence of the rhetorical recklessness that permeates our political moment. the question is whether saturday's shooting marks the logical end point of such a moment or the beginning." good morning. caller: this shooting should reflect and how the argument about the second amendment, guns. in that state, that is a very

high state or people over guns. we cannot get back from -- away from the rhetoric that the tea party had. african american congressmen, calling them the "n" word. we cannot overlook the level of anger place in people's minds and how it is coming forth now. republicans should be out in force calming this down, and they should be taking some of the blame for this. they have been attacking the whole summer and fall. now you have this mindset in some individuals -- i am not saying it is the tea party or the republicans, but we have to acknowledge that they do play a part, especially john boehner, and the person from kentucky. these guys have been very

negative and this has an impact. host: we are getting your reaction to the developing story from tucson, arizona. six people dead. many injured, including representative gabrielle giffords. we will hear from speaker john boehner and 8:30 a.m. eastern time. he said, "i am horrified by the senseless attack on the congresswoman gabrielle giffords. an attack on the one who serves as an attack on all the research. accent threats of violence against public servants -- an a ttack and threats of violence against public servants is attack on us

all." what is your sentiment this morning and what are you thinking and feeling? caller: yesterday was disbelief and shock. today, i'm numbed by the whole thing. tucson is a fabulous place. i grew up there, i was born there, and so was gabby. we are a personal community. we might be a million people, but there is a sense that everybody knows everybody. one of the young man that was killed, her mom was my first thoughts when i started working -- my first boss when i started working it you are not only saddened about a little bit frightened by what direction we are taking all of this discourse and all of this debate we have

to have on the important issues of this country. host: u.s. capitol hill police advising all members of congress to use caution. but what, if anything, could be done for you and other members? you do not have a security detail unless you are part of the leadership. caller: it is part of what we do. it is part of accessibility. it is part of talking to the public. and providing service and constituent service to the public. so it is something that has to be done, and it is part of the job. i think it capitol police, the chief, have to assess their security procedures. there have been -- there's herebyverifiable threats on

members of congress. they need to take those much more seriously. there needs to be an evaluation on where you prioritize the security support that some members need as they go about their business. gabby's had her windows shot out of her office. had similar incidents. i think it behooves the capitol police chief to realize that some of the members are going to need that extra help and security prepar. caller: "vitriol in politics cited in shooting. based on what you have been able to gather, is this politically motivated? is this a lone gun man who used the weapon to kill these six individuals and injured 13 others? what motivated him? the motivationhink

is what many of us suspect -- it was a strange, not stable person, acting up. and bizarre belief targeting gabby and her staff. i personally hope that as it appeared the motivation -- i believe that those of us in leadership, and i am glad the president spoke earlier. our speaker spoke, our leader -- nancy, has spoken. in the state of arizona, our leadership has to step up and understand that our rhetoric and the comments that we make and what we say and how we fan this anger creates impunity to many people that it is ok to demonize one side over the other. to understand that we can be opponents of we are not enemies in this process in this

democracy. i hope everybody takes a deep breath and realize this and that we do not need to be contributing factors to the mean-spirited discourse that is going on. civility needs to return. i think we lead by example. host: we are talking with a representative who is joining us in washington. he represents the seventh congressional district, which includes part of the tucson area. i want to ask you about the calendar this week, because eric cantor has announced that the health care vote scheduled for wednesday has been postponed. caller: i'm glad he did that. i think the business and hand it is the business is horrific act that we're watching and experiencing and the drama and

trauma around that. that is what is in the mind of the members and of the american people. mr. cantor suspended the calendar, and hopefully that will give everybody a chance to reflect. as we go into this repealed vote, then that will be the opportunity for that civil discourse and civil debate to occur. this has been one of those divisive issues that fuels a great deal of anger across the country it was used as part of the cannon fodder in the midterm elections. let's reflect on that and see how as grown-ups and leaders in this country handle this. host: thank you very much for joining us. more reaction from members of the arizona delegation,

including senator john mccain who issued this statement. by the violent attack on representative gabrielle giffords by a wicked person. i pray for gabby in the other victims and for the souls of the dead and comfort for the families. i beg our loving creator to spare the lives of those who are still alive, he'll them in body and spirit. whoever did this, whatever the reason, they are a disgrace. they will deserve and receive the content of all decent people and the strongest punishment of the law." good morning. welcome to the conversation. caller: hello, america. thank you for c-span. i am really sad, man.

watching a lame duck session, becausehokes mje up, this country is so great. i grew up watching the military panama and salutnd e the flag and rotc. people forget where this country came from. we have come past slavery, genocide ofe native americans. we have come so far, an hour after all we have come through and looked back and people being bickering in congress. they are being paid hundreds of thousands of dollars and are responsible for the livelihood of so many americans, and they are arguing so much that they're

exciting the populace were people in their own families cannot get along. host: excellent point about language. the media needs to stop using this language and fanning the left and the right, the divisiveness and day in and day out. the chairwoman of the tea party expressed stated --

host: ray is joining us from maryland on our republican line. good morning. caller: i am sad about this but i am not surprised at all. i told my wife yesterday morning, i said, i do not know who will be shot, but somewhere, one of these congressmen or senators in the united states is going to be shot somewhere. host: how did you know that yesterday morning? what on this network prompted you to say that? caller: it is all the things on c-span. it is not only c-span, it is the news media. this lame duck session they have and the votes that occurred. i have been looking for this way before this last november. i hate it, yes, but this is just the beginning. i am afraid this will happen over and over the senators are

going to have to be protected along with the house members. host: linda says, " the media has no interest in denying coverage to wing nuts of either stripe." from "the houston chronicle", all rampage in arizona shocked the nation. us from wingate, north carolina. good morning. caller: i am not surprised. i have been looking for this ever since the republicans party started spreading hate -- with glenn beck and hannity. the tea party rally. now , the republicans are going to stand up -- they knew it was coming. it was part of the system, to try to throw them out -- to vote

against them. thank you. host: another victim is a john mccarthy roll who testified in 2006. "amid the shock, recalling a judge's life of service. he had been chief judge since 2006 and the federal district court, which is a sprawling area throughout the west. he served as a state judge and was the assistant u.s. attorney for arizona before being appointed to the federal bench. the chief judge is kozinki. he described him as a tireless advocate for the district. of all the chief judges of the circuit, i must say he was always the hardest working, always looking out for the district. he will be a great loss to his

family, but also to the federal judiciary." scott is joining us from westminster, maryland. your reaction to the situation in tucson. six dead, 13 injured, including an arizona congresswoman. caller: it is unfortunate that human life was taken and wounded, because all human life is a special and precious and unique. it should not be taken unless under extraordinary circumstances. it is also unfortunate that people are calling c-span and telling lies. they are saying that the tea party is responsible for this. they are saying that sarah palin is responsible and the republicans are responsible. and that these individuals and parties are part of it. that is a lie, ok? a lot was told that tea party members spit on african-american

congressman. a lot was told that they used the "n' word. the liberal media seems to be wanting to blame first a gun, then sarah palin, then rush limbaugh, and then fox news. it is a lot by the left. -- a lie by the left. host: the shooter is obviously a deranged person, and those of the kind pushed over the edge by the 24-7 vitriol of hate and bigotry my prayer is will be all of those slain yesterday. i do think there is a political unrest in our country. so much negative political division. when congress is divided, it also divides our nation. united we stand. youdivided we fall. >> i am just heartbroken.

gabby is more than a colleague. she is a friend. she has been a noble public servant, in my thoughts and prayers are with congresswoman gifford and her family, her staff and their families, as well as other victims of this senseless and cruel violence. i have ordered that flags to be flown at half staff in honor of those who have lost their lives today. it is an unbelievable tragedy that the people of arizona experienced today. it is one of our worst nightmares. we could never have imagined it would have taken place. i must tell you that a lot of information has been provided to all of you.

we are in constant contact with some officials, and we will be kept oppressed. -- kept abreast. i ask the people of arizona and the people of america to keep the victims and their families forheir prayers, and prraay the recovery and pray that we never again in arizona ever experienced a tragedy like this ever again. host: arizona governor yesterday in response to the shooting in tucson. "the washington post" this morning, "gifford is no stranger to major challenges. to the shooter, jared lee loughner, the story points out -- the meeting was a way for the

congresswoman to stay connected. she was standing outside the grocery store under a banner with her name on it when the suspect began firing. she is a former member of the arizona state senate and house. she served as a president of a tire company founded by her father. she speaks spanish. she is married to an astronaut and navy pilot. in 2006, she was the top record of rahm emanuel and was viewed as the type of young, middle-of- the-road candidate with crossover appeal. that year she won a democratic primary. she was reelected in 2008, and one this past year by 4000 votes. the seat was previously held by jim kolbe. there was this tweet that giffords sent out just before the event. "my first congress on your corner starts now. please stop by and let me know

what is on your mind or tweet me later." democrats line. good morning. caller: it is interesting that the democrats and republicans had discourse, until the tea party got involved and took it to a venomous place. sarah palin's show is not going to be on. that is a good thing. every time obama breeze in the wrong direction, she has something to say about obama or nancy pelosi. all of a sudden, she is quiet. she is not saying anything. sarah palin is responsible, and the tea party is responsible. host: barbara from austin, texas. good morning. >> callercaller: last night, i p the actual text from the c-span

website, of the health care reform law, and the official title is appealing the job- killing health care law act. and that is so political. if you are going to repeal something, called by its name instead of the job-killing act. this shooter is obviously mentally ill, and i remember back when president reagan opened the doors of mental hospitals and put people out on the street. i think that has led to a lot of these mass tragedies that have happened. virginia tech, the young man should have been hospitalized. this shooter should have been hospitalized before and a tragedy like this happen. i am an independent, but i do blame reagan for putting all the mentally ill out on the streets. thank you. host: next is natasha from michigan. good morning.

welcome to "washington journal." caller: thank you for your public service. this has not surprise me. we have a radio station in michigan in our local detroit, a permanent radio station that's used nothing but hate. -- that spews nothing but hate. they call the president of via list of names. the president is a gentleman -- they call him the vilest of names. even the newly elected speaker on tv the other day saying, i do not really know if obama is an american citizen. he should have been a voice of reason and said, stop this. the president has an elected. he is an american citizen, but no, talking such ambiguous terms.

host: you are talking about the interview that brian williams did with john boehner? and he did say that the state of hawaii has a certified him as a u.s. citizen, and i agree with that. caller: yes. but when someone says, i guess if they say he is, they must be. if you are a leader, take on the mantle of leadership and say, this is foolishness. we have more important things to do in this country than to castigate the president, and all of these other people i mentioned, i hold them responsible in a minuscule way because some people they get so worked up, and they just go and do what this person did. i am a republican and i am ashamed of my party. host: rampage in arizona. six killed at this town hall, including a 9-year-old girl.

more reaction from the former governor of arizona, janet napolitano, who said i am horrified by the violent attacks -- that's from john mccain. let me read you a janet napolitano. host: jake is keeping track of this story for politico. what, if anything, could change in light of what happened

yesterday? >> it's unclear. the capitol police department does not have the capacity or the willingness, from what we have seen, to protect 435 members of congress individually in their districts. it would be a tall order. this has been kind of the doomsday scenario for members of congress, that somebody would bring a gun, as somebody who is deranged, and to a meeting of this nature. in talking to lawmakers yesterday, this is kind of exactly that -- the scenario they never wanted to happen. unless you are the president or vice president, your security forces really cannot prevent this from happening. members of congress to do not have audience sweeps or things of that nature before they get out on stage. so, they are going to face a new

world in a sense when they come back to washington, and have to face the reality of what happened. but it is unclear what if any change will happen here. host: there have been some comparisons to what happened to congressman ryan when he traveled to joins town many years ago. this is very different. this is what members of congress to do it each and every day. guest: this is literally an initiative that democrats and republicans pushed to make sure that members are staying in touch with their constituents. somebody who had a gun and walked up to a very public place and started shooting. short of sweeping the entire area and putting everybody through a mag, you will not be able to stop this. that is a scary thought to think up.

but again, members of congress realize that this would happen, that this was an actual threat. they are going to have to face the reality of that relatively soon. host: jake sherman, the aftermath of all this could be seen on your web site at politico this morning. we have had that sentiment with our callers this morning. comparing this to what has happened with the cable chatter. what are your thoughts? going aways i s not anytime soon. it is unclear what exactly will happen in the house of representatives over the next week. that should become clearer today. reality thats a new people face.

and it is both a political reality and a security reality. i think this is something that will not go away. in something that the house will have to tackle in no real way over the next couple days appe. host: thanks as always for being with us. more of your calls and reaction this morning. reggie from stockton, california. welcome to the conversation. caller: you look at people from the right wing, and individuals alike -- like ted nugent. this man runs around with bows and arrows and shooting guns. it sends a message. and they put out the hatred, and these are the soldiers they carry it out, coming from hannity, sarah palin.

they say, the the birth certificate measures, that i would call it treason and the hatred that is coming from the right wing. wehou our president and what are trying to do in this country, it is just hate mongers. he learn this from hannity and his kind. host: "tragedy in tucson. the 40-year-old representative first became a member of the house in 2006. in november, she nearly beat the republican challenger. she served in the arizona legislature. she was one of the youngest women ever to be elected in the state senate. one of our viewers saying, the shorter will have his day in court and hopefully we will get reasons for his crimes.

"the new york times" with this -- he has this conclusion -- none of this began last year on the eve of mr. obama. there's the constant intimidations during the george w. bush presidency that he was a modern hitler, a man whose very existence threatened the cherished american ideals. the more pressing question is where does this end? whether we will begin to reevaluate the piercing pitch of our political debate in the wake of saturday's shooting, or whether we are hurtling unstoppable into a frightening period more like the 1960's. this country labors to recover from the memories of dealey plaza. tucson will be the tragedy that brought us back from the brink or the first in a series of gruesome memories to come." jim joins us from tennessee.

independent line. good morning. caller: dislike of the democrats blaming tea parties, everybody else for this. this was a disturbed young man, probably never had a job, cannot get a job, and they want to blame everybody else. i'm an independent, and this should not be blamed on the republicans. i am not a republican, but, you know, this is just like the democrats to come out with bull crap. host: another story we want to bring to your attention. there is a vote going on in southern sudan. "south sudan reveals as a nation as a birth -- millions had to the polls to decide whether to secede from the north and a vote that is expected to create the

world's of doest nation. after a long civil war and decades of sectarian and ethnic animosity, the mood in the southern capital was elector. banners on street corners are urging people to vote for secession" from "the new york times", president obama has this -- in sudan, an election and the beginning. if the south chooses independence, the international community will have an interest in ensuring that two nations emerge and succeed as a stable, economically viable neighbors, because their fortunes are linked. southern sudan will be partners in the long term of fulfilling the political and economic aspirations of its people. that is from president obama this morning in "the new york times". scenes from the southern part of sudan from "the washington post", as we listen to sig joining us from west lawn, pennsylvania, republican line. good morning. caller: good morning.

i am getting tired of people calling in and saying it is the tea party people. i am reading an article from the associated press describing this jared lee loughner individual. he said his motivation was not clear, but a former classmate described him as a pot-smoking a loner who had rambling beliefs about the world. if i start looking at that pot- smoking, i start thinking -- conservatives, pot, they do not go hand in hand. number two, i think of the vote that was taken for minority leader of the house. nancy pelosi said about this cobbers woman who was shot, she is a dead to me. -- about this congresswoman who was shot, she is dead to me. did this shooter take a subliminal message from nancy

pelosi. is civility in this nation. we stopped learning how to disagree, but to get the same time the civil towards one another. it all started during the administration, at the time that newt gingrich was elected speaker of the house, and we have been very vile and fishes since then. george bush -- hitler -- we have been very vile and vicious since then. you cannot blame the conservatives. host: the civil discourse cannot begin yesterday, or with the obama administration, he pointed out what happened in the 1960's and george w. bush being depicted as hitler. thanks for the call. another comment from the chief of staff to gabrielle giffords.

host: the latest. we will hear from speaker of the house john boehner. he is in west chester, ohio. we will have to live comments at 8:30 a.m. eastern time. there will be a news conference from the university hospital in tucson later today with an update on representative giffords condition. nothing has changed since yesterday. she is in critical condition. according to medical reports, she is heavily sedated but responding to some command.

"rep giffords shot. a 9-year-old girl and two others among those slaying. " kay, from columbus, ohio, good morning. caller: good morning, and thank you for c-span. i am grateful. i have a question. in the campaign season, there was someone running for office to offered up a call to arms and the way of second amendment remedy? can you help me remember, the name of the politician is it? host: i apologize. i was getting ready for the next segment could you repeat your question? caller: yes. who was the politician last campaign season who gave up a call to arms by asking people to use their second amendment

remedies? host: are you talking about sarah palin with the crosshairs? caller: no. there was actually a politician he said, i guess people have to go to their second amendment remedies. host: that was sharon engle in nevada. caller: what people think it is going to happen when they ask people to pick up their guns and use them? what to politicians think will happen? host: thanks for the call. i apologize i could not hear the question earlier. good morning. caller: good morning. this reminds me -- it is a tragedy. obviously, this person was mentally ill, but it makes me think of that case where john grisham filed against a david lynch and for the movie "national born killers," because of a friend of his who was

murdered. it was thrown out, and forcefully, but those people were crazy and they wanted to focus on that movie and they did. and i think this person -- nobody mentioned that ronald reagan was shot by john hinckley, jr., the mentally ill guy that wanted to impress a jodie foster? who knows why this guy did it? he is obviously in saying. i think people are overreacting. i am an independent. i voted for democrats and republicans. host: again, the headline. rep the deferreds shot. in critical condition. -- representative giffords shot. the 9-year-old was at the safeway. she was among those killed, along with judge roll who has testified in the past before the senate judiciary committee.

his testimony is available at c- span.org. caller: steve, listen, i am making an email to mr. lamb. your salary should be doubled. how you do not break into hysterical scales of laughter -- gales of laughter is unbelievable. host: why would we be laughing today? caller: not in a funny way. we call this in the cattle business, and breeding. some of the modern listened to rule we have listened to. -- some of the mindless drool we of listen to. how you can sit there and listened witho. the suspect, the accused of of

the have this kid dead to rights. i do not care if he is mentally insane. taken out, put him up against the wall and shoot him. steve, brian should double your salary or you should run for political office prepar. host: we go to beverly, joining us and north carolina. good morning. caller: good morning. i do not know what to say except this kind of atmosphere has been allowed to go on and on and on, before president obama was elected and more so after he was elected. people have been standing around with loaded shotguns, rifles, whatever, whatever he spoke. whenever he spoke, nothing was done about it. sarah palin is spewing out hatred. nothing is done about it. these tea party people went to washington marching around with

terrible placards. nothing is done about it. the country, i do not know what is happening in america, but it is gone. it is almost over. i am so sorry for this lady. she was elected, but i remember someone asked her father, did she have an enemy? and he said, yes, the tea party. they were always after her. maybe this young man is not a tea party person, but when you hear all this stuff all the time, this is what happens. i am sorry. goodbye. host: again, one other statement from eric cantor, who said yesterday that our nation was shocked by the tragedy in arizona. .

host: coming up, our son de roundtable focusing on not only this of the legislative week ahead -- our son de roun sunday roundtable. .hen john boehner's comments then we will look at the health care ulres. rules. but first, a news update. >> on c-span radio, you could hear of replays of the five network tv talk shows beginning at noon, eastern. topics include the new majority congress.lie rov112th

a re-error of "meet the press" begins at noon, eastern. david more than welcomes harry reid, democrat, the chairman of the congressional black caucus, and a new member of congress from idaho. at 1:00, it is "this week." guests include congressman chris van hollen of maryland. fox news sunday re-airs at 2:00. guests include rand paul, and a congresswoman from washington state. at 3:00 p.m., it is state of the union. dick durbin and lamar alexander r. guest. at 4:00 p.m. eastern, it is face the nation carr.

jon kyl from arizona and chuck schumer our guests. also house democratic whip, steny hoyer. the five network tv talk shows are brought to you as a public service by the networks and c- span. begin ate re0-airs noon. listen to them all on c-span radio at 90.1 in washington, on radio ontellite channel 32. or go online to cspanradio.org. >> thank you very much occurred you've honored me and my family by giving me an opportunity to serve you and our nation. >> with more than 80 appearances by william daley and more than

100 by gene sperling, you can use as the c-span video library to learn more about the newest additions to the obama administration. washington your way. >> i think news organizations have adapted. is it great that we have not -- that overall, news organizations are not doing as much for news or domestic news? but the public knows there is art -- bears responsibility of keeping themselves informed. >> tonight, abc news senior foreign affairs correspondent looks at the wars in iraq and afghanistan on a political, strategic, and personal level, at 8:00 p.m. on c-span's "q&a." >> "washington journal" continues. host: are sunday round table with peter wehner, a former aide

to president george w. bush. and bill press, or radio talk- show host. heard in how many radio stations around the country? guest: thousands. good morning. host: this is picking up on the comments of the house republican leader, eric cantor -- tragedy for the entire country. guest: i think he is right. i think. and creatures are the ones to put things like this in perspective. -- preachers and pundits are the ones to put things like this in perspective. you see the pictures of the 9- year-old girl, and the federal judge, and the congresswoman that was shot. it is a senseless act, a violent act. it does not appear to be a politically motivated acts. these things happen every day, but we are in washington when

public figures get shot, it brings in more vivid way the tragedy of life. ripple effects. as a christian, you pray for the families and as the lord to bring mercy and grace during this time. host: is this part of the political discourse, bill press? guest: first, i have to agree with everything he said. i think of that 9-year-old girl, elected to the student council in elementary school, and she goes to see a member of congress in the united states of america because she is interested in politics and interested in learning more about government. she is shot and killed for that very act. this is a senseless tragedy, but i was struck by what the sheriff said, that this is a time for some soul-searching on the part of all must, that particularly in arizona, the political

rhetoric has been red-hot, not just in this political race, but on the immigration debate. i wrote a book about this, called "toxic talk," how the radical right has poisoned america's airwaves. how talk radio can produce violent actions. and the sheriff last night said that this rhetoric we have heard in the politics lately is free speech, but he said it does have consequences. i think that is the message for the day. one of the messages for the day. host: one of the questions from jonathan martin and political. who in american politics deserves a slice of the blame? and what public officials find themselves with a sudden opportunities for political gain in a tragedy? guest: there is no evidence this is politically motivated. i will say a couple of things. if you go back in history of

discourse in america, what we are having today is not nearly as bad as the election in 1800 between jefferson and adams. that is that a product of american political discourse in our founding and for most western democracies. secondly, these tend to be very selective on both sides. george w. bush was called a moral coward, a loser, a liar, a war criminal, and so forth. the left said very little about it. there was a movie about an assassination of george w. bush. alan grayson, the most vitriolic member of the congress, he gave a speech on the floor that said that the gop health care plan was to let people die early. to try to convert a human tragedy into politics i think is slightly sickening, especially if there is no evidence is there. the other thing i would say is

that for a public official to create a situation -- in which some twisted figure can take political discourse and some doubt interpret that as a green light to kill people, i think -- and somehow interpret that as a green light to kill people, i think is absurd. this like to be bothers me. if the republican had been shot, i would not blame alan grayson or people who are harsh critics of president bush. it is kind of depressing that this has happened. blamingi am not anybody but the not that shot her. one other problem that we should talk about is that this nut that shot her got his hands on a glock 19, which should never have been allowed. i think you are dead wrong on this. i am reading the letters of john and abigail adams, wonderful exchanges. it took weeks if not months for

abigail to get a letter from massachusetts to philadelphia. today, with the media we have, you have instant communication. you have a guy like michael savage, who has a violent talk all the time. instantaneously he can say something ugly and it is out there. if i can finish. we have a situation this summer were glenn beck called george soros the most evil threat facing america. then they arrested a glenn beck file were heading to san francisco to take out the leadership of that foundation. this is a centrist democrat, gabrielle giffords, this was one of the candidates that sarah palin put up and put crosshairs over their names and districts. that, to somebody that is on hand, means, of crosshairs means take out your gun and go after

them. host: sarah palin did express her shock at what happened. this is from the daily news -- it showed that representative giffords was one of the district. politician she thought needed to go. giffords said that when you represent a district that includes the ok corral, nothing surprises you in terms of political discourse. guest: i do not disagree that civil discourse is important. i have written things critical of glenn beck of michael savage and tea party members, and i am a conservative republican. we wrote a book about politics in the new era, where we talk about the importance as christians in politics. i think it is a valid. you do not hear liberals -- i

have yet to find a liberal who went after alan grayson, and his record is deplorable. and the people who criticize the bush record the problem is when you take this issue of political discourse and it had the right to a killing like this, when it may not be valid. when "the new york times" writes about the political rhetoric and it appears it has nothing to do with it. the implication is that rhetoric sometimes goes too far, somehow the trigger or green light for a political assassination is sickening. it is unwarranted. guest: in my lifetime, i have seen too many people i have admired starting with ronald reagan and bobby kennedy and john f. kennedy shot for political motivation to deny there is a connection between

violent rhetoric and violent action. it does not always happen. but i come back to the sheriff. he said the rhetoric was so red hot that he was not surprised at this, because they all get death threats. that is what hit has come to. it is imperative on both sides to say cool the jets. guest: it is fine to say that. i have been saying that. other people have said that before. there have been assassinations throughout american history. the one that you cite are like hinckley. there is no evidence that public discourse was the thing that drove him. what drives people in overwhelming cases to assassinate political leaders is not discourse. it is a twisted, sick mind. they do not a political discourse to give them the green light to do it. and to try and take that kind of thing and to convert it is really a way to try and go

after political opponents. it is such a political view of the world appear. lineur're a hammer, every is nail. bill clinton was saying that it was rush limbaugh and talk radio. guest: denial is not just a river in egypt. i think i'm hearing a lot of denial. . .

caller: steve, you're doing a great job. i just want to comment that we were talking about legislative activity. we've got two congressmen from georgia on the appropriations committee, jake and tom, my congressman who i think will be president some day. and then we've got tom price on the ways and means and goingry

on the armed services who served with the wonderful lady that was in the tragedy. and my comment to these two fine gentlemen, steve, and to you is here based on what happened in arizona, long before we we decided in our hometown to make the county the friendliest county in the history of the world, and we preach love and we are against any -- i'm a contoiftive, i'm a member of the tea party but i love people. we don't -- i'm conservative. i believe in less government and less taxes but we would never attack you. i've got a lot of good liberal friends who i love and respect. that's the way we operate here. we're working to make our county the friendliest county in the world, we don't care what your party. we want to be kind to them and

try to lift them up. and i would like your comments. guest: god bless america. and i look forward to my next visit to gill mor county. host: we'll go to scott next in new york. good morning. caller: i met you when you were in itsdzca the last time. you did a show with stephanie. you half promised to have me as a guest. i'm a democrat and i don't agree with a lot of things within my party and within the republican party. but i want to keep you to your word maybe from here on out, you know, there's a lot of hatred that comes from progressive talk radio towards republicans and i don't like the way republicans do things in general. but i think we need to all cool our jets and the comments by peter, you know the psychology behind why people do certain things, it doesn't always

correlate to a political event. we had growing up the texas twower shooter. we had all kinds of people that do crazy things like that that kill people and snipe people and it doesn't always correlate to a political thing. the actual psychology behind that person is what we need to understand. and somebody brought this up in our local -- religious services. we were talking around the table and there's a guy who is a facilitator. and people go to public meetings and they have their three minutes. but the people on the panels, whether it's a city council, whether it's a school board, whether it's a town hall, they never really fully interact with the speaker. there's some cooks out there that you don't have time to talk to but we don't have full interaction between the speakers and the boards, and people are getting more and more frustrated with what's happening politically. and just gives an avenue for

the people on the fringe mentally. but i think you need to tone things do you know on your show. i think you need to go backwards and basically say you disagree with some of these other people some of these more nutty people like rush and some of these other people. but you need to be more kind like that previous caller said and show more love. host: thanks for the call. guest: to him and the viewers. and the listeners. two things. one is i thing it's real depressing that you let this [inaudible] political discourse. the second is the caller makes a good point. if you listen to msnbc, you can go through the whole list, the rhetoric that is used against republicans and conservatives is way out there. it's pretty nasty stuff. i don't like it.

i've criticized it before. but i would never in a hundred years try and take that and say, well, this is the thing that's driving political assassinations. and i just wish that other people would as well. guest: i really reject the moral equivalencey argument. first, i have to say to scott, i'm glad i don't have to put you on my radio show now because we just gave you five minutes on c-span. so he's gotten his time. and in terms of showing the love, i would invite you e-mail me and tell me any time that you have heard one hateful word out of me or any time that i would have gone anywhere close to suggesting that people use violent means to satisfy their political views and i will take your point. but you won't find one. host: from the outlook section of the "washington post," the

real americans look at the constitution through the ice of conservatives. there's also a piece by jeffery rosen about scalia's view of the u.s. constitution from the readings on thursday. as we pointed out thursday, gabby gifford delivered the first amendment which is freedom of speech and assembly. and also reading the constitution, the speaker of the house, john boehner. >> we, the people of the united states in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, ensure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity do ordain and establish this constitution for the united states of america. host: and yet on your blog you say the controversy of the members of the 112th congress reading the constitution is not about that. it's about something much deeper and much more significant. how so?

guest: it's really a debate about the meaning and relevance of the constitution in our lives. and there are a lot of people actually in the health care today in the last year, there were a number of leading democrats who said that the constitution was irrelevant to that debate. and indeed the implication was to public life in general. there's a big divide today. it's a complicated issue because the constitution itself, how it applies at a particular moment in time and to the issues of our day isn't always self-evident. there's a kind of disposition a cast of mind which is what do you think of the constitution, the place that ought to have the constitution does many things but maybe above all it's a check on power. and a check on federal power. that's why you have the different divisions of government, separation of powers, why you have federalism and so forth. and the modern liberal sensibility is for the

government to have more and more control in our lives. the interesting thing that is one of the ironies of american history is that barack obama, nancy pelosi and harry reid would have given rise to this debate about constitutionalism and the ascendancy of this. it's a real and important debate to have. i think that the comparison to scalia is quite right. i think there is a -- written about there's a debate about whether the constitution is a living breathing document meaning that it evolves and more fs and is interpretted by judges to say what it is wanted to say or whether it is a text that sort of anchors our views. i'm a constitutionalist in general. i think it's really a remarkable document, really one of the great political documents in american history. not perfect but really quite amazing. and i think for liberals to go after and mock the constitution, which some did

when the republicans opened the first day of business as leading the house, to mock it is a plit can i perilous thing. guest: i think you can count on one hand the liberals who mocked the constitution. it's a marvelous document. it's gotten us through all these years. but just a couple points. scalia is dead wrong on this issue that the constitution has to be taken literally and it is a dead document which i have heard him say. i saw a cartoon yesterday where somebody was outside of a rest room trying to say and saying sir you can't go in there because it's not in the constitution. governments have had to say there have to be as many rest rooms for women as many. you won't -- men. >> that's not what he is arguing. guest: i think he's dead wrong. i think this was a hollywood stunt, frangely.

but i liked it. i hope they learned something from it. i hope when they were reading the constitution which by the way they showed themselves it was not a perfect document because they left out the part where the vote wasn't given to women. they left out the part where the vote wasn't given to african americans because they didn't want people to know there are things here that wasn't perfect. so that was funny games. but i hope they heard that only congress can declare war and that we get away from the republican or democratic president taking us to war without a vote of congress. that would be a big step forward. and the fourth amendment. i hope they listened to those strong words about the right of privacy, even though that phrase does not appear there. and maybe they would have learned something. guest: and maybe from the fourth amendment. host: if scalia has his way, this is from the "new york

times," the supreme court begins its new session this week we'll go to jim joining us from michigan our line for independents. caller: hi, steve. how are you? host: fine, thank you. caller: listen, joe in georgia i'll put my mushrooms and dinner against his barbecue any day. but anyway. guest: it's full of love. caller: absolutely. i'm a socialist, he's a republican. that's fine. but any way, it's not surprise what's happening. i mean, ever since reagan initiated the class war and redistributed the wealth from

poor and the middle class to the wealthy with his tax cuts and making it up by taxing unemployment benefits and taxing waiters and waitresses, and a few other examples of the class war, i'm not going to mention any names but you know you've got a guy that shoots somebody in the face, nothing happens. you've got a guy that's got more oxycotin in his bathroom than the local cvs, nothing happens. a guy in wisconsin shoots his own television in his own house over some dance show and he has to post a $1500 bond to get out of jail? now, like i said i'm not going to mention any names but their initials were dick cheney, rush limbaugh, and i'm not familiar with the gentleman from wisconsin. but there's basically been a

class war and i'm not surprised. and bill, if you could have like an ed schultz flash the address for msnbc because we all don't have computers. i wouldn't mind writing him to get stuff off my mind. and i think everybody there does a bangup job. thanks a lot. and you gentlemen have a great day. host: from john who says guest: this is a debate and this is a serious one and people have to engage in it, which is can the constitution do only what is enumerated. now, i think you have to give some wide berth to the interpretation, trying to apply the constitution to the issues of the day is not self-evident. does that mean that the new deal was unconstitutional? i don't think so. let me just say to the -- but,

there's a very serious debate which is are there limits to the federal government and the powers that it may have. and in fact, judge hudson, federal judge that just ruled that the individual mandates were unconstitutional, that was a 42-page opinion even if people disagreed with it, it basically said, the thrust of the argument, are there any limits to what the federal government can demand of people and citizens? and a lot of liberals seem not to be able to draw that line of conservatives tend to want to do it and how that works its way out in real life is one of the important political debates of our time and i think we should have it and continue to have it. guest: to this extent i agree. i said this is a fundamental question that we've wrestled with since the days of the continental congress, which is are -- or the constitutional

congress, the convention. what powers belong to the states and what powers belong to the federal government? it's been there from the beginning. it exists today. and the constitution is our guiding document. but you won't find everything in the constitution. and when the general welfare clause is pretty broad. it can't be limited to what existed in the 18th century. look at the whole debate over net neutrality. but the supreme court is going to have to tackle that. they can't go to any article of the constitution and find specific language. they're going to have to apply it. and i think that's the importance, that we apply the constitution to the realities of today and we have to do so. and this debate will continue long after we're gone. host: cover story.

guest: this is going to be the adult moment, if you will, for the tea party, particularly. look, i wish we didn't have to raise the debt ceiling, we did it 92, 94 times. host: and we've gone from 13 to 14 trillion in sen months. guest: now it's appalling the size of the deficit and debt. we do have to deal with it. at the same time, i think it would be catastrophic not just for this country but worldwide to let this country go into default and basically to shut do you know the government i think would be catastrophic. the least of my concerns, it would be catastrophic for the republican party. but for tea partiers it's going to be a reality test. and by the way, i would say i think the vote on repeal of

health care is a reality test, too, because that would add $230 billion according to the congressional budget office to the deficit and the extension of tax cuts for the wealthy added another and the estate tax added another $430 billion. but the key is going to be the debt ceiling. host: and you say the argument for limiting the size of the federal government and reducing spending is strong but refusing to raise the debt ceiling isn't the way or the place to do it. why? guest: well, several things. because raising the debt ceiling has to do with existing obligations, not tute ones. that is even if you were able magically in the next week to get the republican cuts in place and you went do you know to the 2008 discretionary spending limits, within a couple of weeks you'd still have to raise the debt ceiling. that's existing not future obligations. you've got to do it. it's a catastrophe if you

don't. i don't for the life of me understand why jim demint and michelle balkman want to make this a point of debate. you can't win it. you're going to raise the debt ceiling. you've got to do it. i'm perfectly happy to have someone like paul ryan, i'm a great fan of congressman ryan's try and use it for leverage to get real spending cuts in place but this is not the place to do it. and if republicans say, as senator demint did, which is no matter what i would get if i was able to get a constitutional amendment to balance the budget, you should still vote against it, i think is extremely unwise and i can't imagine that the leadership in the senate or the house agree with it. guest: i think it is going to happen, it is going to pass. guest: it is going to pass. it is worth pointing out that barack obama in 2006 voted

against raising the debt ceiling. now he's asking that people do it and that just shows when you're president sometimes your obligations change. so since i agreed with bill on one thing, let me disagree on the cbo issue of the scoring of the health care bill. the way it works, you know this when you're in government, bill knows it as well. the c.b.o. score was essentially given to them based on the assumptions that you have. if you examine the assumptions for the health care bill and the scoring that if you repeal health care that the deficit would go up, it's really ludicrous. this is one of the most outrageous examples. there's several things it doesn't take into account. it doesn't take into account the $115 billion that it takes to implement the program. it double countsmaker and social security cuts. it takes ten years of taxes to pay for six years of expenditures and doesn't take

into account the dock fix, that is payments to physicians that democrats themselves have already said are going to go into effect this year, which is some $200 billion. when you take all of those things together and do a reality check, you would see that over that ten-year period of time the health care plan would increase the debt by around $700 billion. so this effort to try and say, on a common sense, that you have an open-ended entitlement and that would somehow lower the debt and deficit is ludicrous on its face. guest: i think to impune the integrity the people at the guest: i just said i'm not. guest: and say they took the numbers they were handed. let me say, look, these guys are researchers, these guys are profebruaryals. they work at this stuff. and in season and out of season, republican or democrat, you go to whoever is in charge you go to the congressional budget office and you get their

take and then that's the basis, kind of the people then decide they agree or disagree with it. but john boehner pulled this out of his butt when he said he told brian williams that nobody in washington believes that repealing health care adds to the deficit. hello. the most respected financial office in washington does. the congressional budget office. and you're ignoring the savings that are there for example from the fact that if more people have health insurance we're not going to be paying for them when they got to the emergency room. you're ignoring the savings that come from the new more efficient delivery of medicare and medicare. i say take the officials at their word but don't say they're just flunkies. guest: point of personal privilege. i didn't say that. i think the c.b.o. is a terrific office. what i said is that congress has rigged the game, and this has happened for both sides, where they give c.b.o. a piece

of legislation and they build in the assumptions and cb overpb doesn't have any choice other than score it based on the assumptions that they get. i don't blame c.b.o. i blame the political class for doing that. all the things that i listed are empirical. bill can check it out after the show to see whether that's in fact the case. this is an old trick to say you're going after the c.b.o. i think the c.b.o. -- guest: i disagree that the head of the c.b.o. would put out a number that he or she could not stand we hind with the facts. i think they're professionals. they would not do that. guest: look, they did the same thing when congressman ryan put forward legislation with certain assumptions, too. and that came out with a completely different number. the head of the c.b.o. will stand behind those numbers based on the assumption that they're given. the question becomes how valid

are the assumptions that you're getting? and my argument is that anybody in an intellectually honest way would look at these assumptions that the c.b.o. was given on the scoring, couldn't come away from it and believe that you would cut the deficit. guest: i think the real problem is that the republicans have hooked their wagon to the star that is fallings and they're going to regret that they dit it. host: one of the editorials this morning. called about that $100 billion. also from one of our viewers. john adams said that parts of the constitution were too vague and congress is supposed to go back and tighten the loose ends. so the debate over the constitution. cynthia is joining us from iowa. thanks for waiting. good morning. caller: good morning. i was calling to discuss another topic but since you're

on the constitution, i think we would be well served to use the powers of the constitution to have public debate to change the constitution rather than to do it legislatively. that wasn't the point i wanted to make. i wanted to talk about ethics and journalism. and 24 hour a day news is not serving us well. they ask a lot of questions and when tragedy strikes like it did in arizona they title it as if it's a movie and they promote it as though it is fiction rather than the real horrible violence. and that isn't good. and journalists do have ethics. they ought to follow them. and when it's entertainment it should be labeled as entertainment. and it's a travesty to take violence like this and then try to find out why. we need to understand why he did it. there's no reason that's good enough. it was a horrible violent event. whether it was motivated by his

dislike of an individual. it touched many lives. it's wrong. and to cnn has titled it, so has fox already, as if it's a movie title, not a horrible violent event. host: thanks for the call. bill, author of toxic talk, how the radical right has poisoned american air waves. guest: this is a whole other discussion but i happen to agree with what cynthia said. i think the 24 hour news cycle has destroyed american politics and cable news has destroyed american politics in the sense, certainly changed it for the worse because we don't have any time to step back and think. we just, it's just 24/7 automatic opinions, opinions moving on. and we do take one story, blow it up, cover that nonstop. host: and yet you're part of that dialogue. guest: i am part of it.

i'm a guest, i'm not paid by msnbc. i happen to appear on some of their shows maybe two or three times a week. but i'm part of it and i still say that. i just think that political dialogue has not been helped by the nonstop nature of the news cycle today. and it's not just cable now. it's -- i mean, cable is actually old news, the blogs that were first and the twitter and facebook. guest: look, i accept some of that but i guess i would make some caveyats on it. there are certainly extremes on all of this venues we're talking about. i think overall that the revolution in news and technology has been good. because i think a lot of voices that once upon a time were not in the public debate now are. and there are bad blogs but there are good blogs. there are smart people who in the past would not have written

things. including liberal people. and i disagree with them on a lot of things but he's an intelligent guy. for conservatives, the reality is that there was a de facto monopoly in terms of mindset in world view that dominated the news for many years and now there's an outlet. there's a way for people with different views to get their voices heard. i think that's good. we're taking as an example the dan rather story on george bush and his time in the national guard. 15 or 20 years ago, that story could have destroyed bush's reelection because there would not have been a capacity to offer counter argument or counter facts. it happened that some bloggers used -- took the story and within hours showed that it was fabricated and so bush did not suffer for a false story and it was indeed dan rather who was eventually fired for his conduct in that story. if that had happened pre-blog,

that wouldn't have happened. but look, the political debates can be contentious, and again, it's been like that since the founding of the country. it's quite right that now there's an instantaneous quality to it and now you have tweets and twitters that exceed what the space of the blog was doing. up to take things in the totality of their acts. and my view if you take it in the totality, the different voices that you have, the different arguments, the different facts that are out there make public dialogue more informed, not less. inchingtsdz i don't think you get my point. i'm not depiss agreeing. i blog myself. i'm just saying this 24 hour news cycle. john boehner's weeping. back in the days when you had an evening forecast, that would not have gotten the attention it did. but when you have 24 hour -- guest: host: let me stop you there.

we're listening to the speaker of the house. >> with congressman giffords and her family. we're also praying for the families of judge roll and all of those who were takingen from us yesterday so senselessly. among the fallen is gabe zimmerman, a member of congresswoman giffords' staff and i've directed that the flags on the house sigh of the capitol be flown at half mass in honor of his death in the line of duty. an attack on one who serves is an attack on all who serves. such acts of violence have no place in our society. i want to commend the federal state and local officials as well as the capitol police for all of their efforts. and i told the f.b.i. director that the house stands ready to assist in any way possible. last night, the majority leader announced that the normal business of the house in the

coming week has been postponed so that we can take necessary action regarding yesterday's events. the majority leader will announce a revised schedule. to the members of the house and their staffs, i ask that you on this sabatsdz day that we keep gabby and her staff in our thoughts and prayers. public service is a high honor but these tragic events remind us that all of us in our roles in service to our fellow citizens comes with a risk. this inhumeyain act will not deter us from our calling to represent our constituents and to fulfill our oaths of office. no act, no matter how hainyuss, must be allowed to stop us from our duty. host: the comments of the speaker of the house john

boehner in his congressional district just outside of cincinnati in ohio. we're joined here by pete and bill. any final thoughts? guest: i think that was a very nice statement, decent, appropriate, modest. and i hope other people follow his lead. guest: well said, very appropriate to do that. he is the speaker of the members of the house. he showed some real leadership there. host: on this day, thank you both for being with us. appreciate your comments. guest: thank you. host: we're going to turn our attention to a bipartisan policy commission recommendation on reducing the debt and deficit later. we'll take a closer look at the new health care rules taking effect this year and at the conclusion of the program we'll turn our phone lines back open to you to get your comments on the situation in arizona.

we are back in just a moment h >> you have honored me and my family by giving me an opportunity to serve you and to serve our nation. >> with more than 80 appearances and more than 100 by gene, you can use the c-span

video library to learn more about the newest additions to if obama administration, just two of the more than 115 thureks people you can search and watch. it's washington your way. >> i think news organizations have adapted. is it great that we're not -- that overall news organizations probably aren't doing as much for news and more doing more domestic news? but the bubble public bears some responsibility too, keeping themselves informed. host: we want to welcome steve belle, a visiting scholar at the bipartisan policy center. we reached the $14 trillion in

the nation's debt this past month and congress will vote probably as early as late march to vote on raising the debt ceiling, which is now set at $14.3 trillion. can democrats and republicans reach an agreement on this? guest: well. but it's going to be messy. right now at $14., every month we probably at about 1 to 1.2, $120 billion to the debt. so we have about a two or three month period here. the east mat, if you look at what secretary geithner said, you see it's about late march, early april and the bind starts. they're going to reach agreement but they're not going to reach a final agreement until probably june or july. host: so what will happen in the interim? guest: my best estimate, just talking up on the hill to folks is this, the continuing resolution for appropriations

capires on march 4 and they'll probably have to have some cuts in that level of spending from the 2010 level back to 2008. the second step is what package do we put together do get republicans and some democrats to pass the debt bill. what kind of deficit reduction package? i don't think they'll be able to reach between march and april that kind of agreement. so i think what we're looking at is probably a short-term debt extension a month or two giving them time to work on some sort of package that the president, the house and the senate can agree on. that will probably come, in my view, probably come to a head in june or july. host: this is at the same time that the house republicans are looking at $100 billion in spending cuts over the next year. guest: that's not going to happen. i say that, i'm a republican staffer for all those years.

to get a $100 billion off the deficit you have to have a cut of $100 billion in spending. and it sounds like yogi berra talk to say that. but to get $100 billion in outlays is going to take probably the recission that is the revication of about $150 billion in appropriated moneys. remember what the deal is. we're going to get $100 billion. it's going to be nom nonsecurity. and it's going to be all discretionary. no medicare, no medicaid, no social security. so you're talking about between a 16% and 20% cut in one year in what we call these discretionary accounts. and for people who wonder what that is, it's education, transportation, all the science research we do, it's nih. it's basic things like air marshalls. tsa, even if you don't like

them you still have to fund them. so they will not have the votes on that. so they're now backing off from the $100 billion. and people who say that aren't being partisan. i'm telling you as a matter of numbers they're not going to reach that in outlay cuts. or host: the other number, unemployment rate, now higher in parts of michigan and nevada. friday the chairman of the federal reserve board testifying bmb the zphat budget committee taking a question from bean republican jeff sessions on the issue of spending cuts when should congress, when can the white house begin cutting spending. here's part of that exchange from friday. n truth. to my colleagues in we'll honor our pledge to america built on a process of listening to the american people. we will stand firm on our constitutional principles that built our party and built the great nation. we will do these things however in a manner that restores and respects the time honored --

host: that's the comments of the speaker of the house as he outlined the agenda for the next congress. we'll get to ben bernanke in just a moment. but what about the speaker's comments? guest: i think the speaker who i know only a little bit and have great respect for, i think the speaker is caught between the tea party imprtive, what they ran on last year to get elected in november and the numbers. and that is a very uncomfortable position to find yourself in. i think he means what he says, i don't think that half of the new members of the house had any idea what comprises real federal spending. host: so what do you do? how do you cut spending which everyone agrees needs to happen without hurting the economy and also reducing the overall deficit and debt? guest: if you look at the plan, the bipartisan policy center put together, and we had a highly respected democrat and a highly respected republican

former senator, we had just that kind of dual mandate, so what we said is this. let's for the first year or two cut the pay roll tax. not 2% but the entire 6.2% both for employer and employee for one full year. that we believe is stimulus, a sufficient stimulus to get out of where we are now, which is really a stag nation. when you start to implement year by year over a 20-year period changes in enentitlements, medicare, medicaid, other pensions, and you stabilize the debt at a place around 60% of gdp. and just for the record, depending on how you want to calculate it we're somewhere between 65% and 100% of gdp right now. host: i think we have ben bernanke now his testimony on friday. of course speaker boehner's comments were relevant because he outlined the agenda in terms of cutting spending for the

next congress and ben asked the question by senator sessions about when the spending cuts should take place. >> has to do with the problems are not just this year or next year. the problems go out decades. and i think it's not too soon to have a strong set of measures that will bring do you know deficits over time so that we have at some point a stabilized and then declining debt to gdp ratio. so i think action is needed but i think you're not going to solve the problem by just making cuts for this year's budget. you need to think about the whole future path. host: comments of ben bernanke. guest: he's right. dr. bernanke has been right in this particular area all of his research and all of his life. no one that i know who is not in elected office, and i want to put that caveat in there,

disagrees with that analysis. the report we put out was a report comprised of 19 opinions. ten democrats and nine republicans. none of whom held office right now. but almost all of whom were either budget specialists or who held elective office in the past. we had no dissention on the recommendations that we made. and remember, even with what some people think are draconian changes in entitlements we only get to 60% of gdp as a ratio of debt to gdp. only 60%. host: one part of this executive summary, because your center is recommending a 6.5% national debt reduction sales tax. you call it a drst. that along with spending cuts will reduce the debt and security america's economic future. guest: yes. host: when would you implement that and how long would it stay in place? guest: first, you would implement it in the first year. second, you would implement it as long as it was necessary to

get the deficit do you know -- the debt do you know to 60% of gdb. our assumption is it would gradually go away if in fact we were able to stabilize our debt. host: has congress ever eliminated a tax? guest: not since 1986. that's a quarter of a century, 25 years. we haven't had tax reform in 25 years. so the answer is for most people's lifetimes, no. host: and also you're talking about keeping down or trying to control medicare expenses, social security increase retirement age phased in over 30 years. guest: 30 years. there was a man once who said that compound interest was the eighth wonder of the modern world. and what he meant is you take $5 and you raise so much must be without raising your hand. it's great when you're on the jutch side of that.

we're on the down side of that. every day this year we will add approximately 10,000 new recipients for medicare every day. in addition to those new entrants, the cost associated with the care be will go up. so you have not only an increase in the number of people, you have an increase in each of their care. and that's compounding against you. so medicare, and even more than medicaid, presents a very serious problem. right now we are taking money out of the general fund to pay medicare recipients. and that's not what was intended back in 1964. host: you're a veteran of capitol hill. you served as the chief of staff on the budget committee. when secretary gates, the defense secretary outlines $78 billion in pentagon spending cuts one of the first paragraphs members of congress trying to fight that because of the impact it will have on his or her congressional district.

so you have a cabinet member saying let's cut spending and some members of congress are saying not in this area because we have a plant in my area or we have a military base. so we can't do that. so the politics behind all of this leads to what? guest: i think it continues to be the first six months to a year is going to be very messy. you put your finger right on it. one of the leaders of the republican majority in the house has already complained publicly and privately about the fact that in his district one of these suggestions would close down a facility and perhaps 1,800 jobs. host: mr. cabinetor. guest: mr. cantor. so when it comes to their local politics find it very difficult to endorse even modest cuts. and remember what the secretary gates said. i'm going to save that money but i'm going to spend it

elsewhere inside of the pentagon budget. so it's not a net decrease, it is a reallocation of funds. host: baltimore for steve bell of the bipartisan policy center as we talk about raising the debt ceiling and the federal debt. good morning to you, sir. caller: good morning. i just want to say that people are playing a really serious game of chicken here and that republicans specifically aren't or the tea party is not realizing that if you don't raise the debt ceiling what that's going to do to america. what it's going to do to interest rates. what it means if america defaults on its current obligations. and that really it keeps talking about that, unless you're willing to cut military spending, significantly, as well as cutting entitlements like medicare and social security you're never going to solve the problem. guest: there's no doubt about that.

i was very lucky for a while in my life. i got to work not only on capitol hill but for a firm called solomon brothers in new york. and we at the time along with goldman sachs were the largest bold houses in the world and we bought all this stuff from the united states treasury and sold it to other people. the notion that we would seriously consider even a one-day quote default on payment of national debt is really in the area of sillyness. and i use that word. it's almost adolescent. i hear people on the hill of both parties saying i am never going to vote for a debt ceiling increase. well, they are. or we're going to have something that makes 2008 and 2009 looks like child's play. and the gentleman who called is exactly right. we are playing a stupid game of chicken here. we know we're going to have to pass it. and at some point people who

pledged on the campaign trail that they would never vote for a debt increase are going to have to do that. and that's why i said at the beginning, what package of spending restraint do you have to put together to make republicans comfortable with voting for an increase in the debt ceiling? i don't know the answer. we've tried to give in our report a good outline, a very specific outline of what you could do. we're not naive. everybody on that panel is very experienced and we know that some of this stuff is extremely tough and isn't going to happen this year. it should as bernanke said. you need to start now. host: our conversation is with steven bell. as he indicated a veteran of solomon brothers. he spent 25 years on capitol hill serving as the chief of staff to the chair of the budget committee. he also served as a member of the federal thrift safings plan board and is here to take your calls.

next, gainesville, florida. good morning. we'll try one more time. go ahead, please. caller: thank you. good morning, sir. i am actually very much confused about the political talk about deficit. everybody -- i'm sorry if you were speaking. anyway, can i speak now, please? host: we can hear you. go ahead now. guest: -- caller: ok. everybody is trying to point fingers on the other side. wherever the deficit started i do not know much of the history but i know that we owe a big debt. most of it maybe interest on the earlier debt quh nobody even tries to think of. but my question is, when so many new representatives are

coming, did they ever think of that they had to sacrifice something or is it they just point out to the public, to the people who are already paying for the debt of the debt created by leaders? host: thanks for the call. we have a related twitter comment from bill along her lines guest: well, i think they are getting to a fundamental reality. over the last 35 to 40 years, because they wanted to get reelected, and i believe in that system. ok? i think you have to satisfy a majority of voters in your district or in your state or else they're going to kick you out. and the desire was for medicare. it was for medicaid, it was for social security and other

pensions. if you voted against those things, the very good chance was you would be diselected, republican, democratic. and i'll give you a history. in 1986, petedom chi and bob dole put together a plan that included a small restraint in the increase in social security. called a cost of living adjustment. and they passed that on the floor of the united states senate very dramatically. pete wilson had just had the night before an apdecty. he was rolled into the chamber on a gurny it was a 50-49 vote. a few weeks later, president reagan pulled the rug and changed his mind. he decided he didn't want to support that. that november, republicans lost overwhelmingly the united states senate. so that political courage was slapped do you know. so when we start complaining about elections and people who

get elected, politicians, remember what they're doing. they're representing what they think is the majority interest in their district or state. and the fact of the matter is people want to keep medicare, they want to keep pensions, and they do not want them restrained in any way. at the same time, they want the deaf sit to go down. i think that phrase is cognitive dissidents, the ability to keep two things in polar opposites in your head at the same time. it drives politicians crazy. petedom inchi was lucky enough that he had the ability to persuade people, we've got to do this. he was not a popular chairman after the elections. i remember jack said to him, pete, is this the way it was supposed to turn out? it wasn't but it showed what secretary baker said was probably true. if you touch social security, it's the third rail of politics, you're going to get

elect cuted. even though it was 20 years ago that has stuck with most people who run for office in this town. host: another viewer with this comment. guest: they do owe billions. the viewer is exactly right. in fact, in the recommendations we make, we say this. let's eliminate almost every one of these tax loopholes. call them tax expenditures, call them whatever you want to. if you do that, you save into the hundreds of billions of dollars. there is no reason for example other than political clout on the hill that we don't tax overseas earnings. now, you're going to hear if you heard a lobbyist or someone from wall street here, they would go crazy at such a stafplte. but the fact of the matter is it is hundreds of billions of dollars of uncollected taxes. also, one of the reasons you ask about this debt redusm tax,

if you have that kind of, it's much harder for people to cheat on their taxes and you have much higher compliance. you actually are able to get a lot more compliance from tax payers, especially big tax payers. host: frank is joining us from illinois. welcome to the program. caller: good morning, gentlemen. i have a comment here. if it is so difficult to reduce the national debt, how is it so easy to increase the debt? it only indicates tremendous waste and crazy spending and that's all i have to say. thank you. guest: well, as far as waste and crazy spending, i don't think anybody would disagree with that. it's easy to increase the debt for one reason. people want programs. they look upon government as a provider of programs. and i think it's important, if

anything comes out of these discussions such as the one we're having now, it's this fact. you must make fundamental changes and make quite frankly over time some sacrifices, minor now, but very major later if you don't act now. in things that people take for granted. medicare, medicaid, social security, pensions. we're not talking about cutting people on those programs now. we're talking about phasing in over time. the only way you're going to get debt under control is to have that kind of phased-in program. or you could wait and i'll give you an example. you could wait until you face a crisis in medicare. at which point you have two choices. you can cut 25% of the benefits present recipients get or you could increase taxes by about double on medicare. that would be extremely painful not only to the people that receive it but to the economy.

so yes it's easier to give people things to answer the viewer's question directly, than it is to take it away from them. host: this twitter comment ecans lates what many are saying on our twitter page guest: no one does. if we were spending $3 trillion on defense, kind of right now we're at $553 billion. that's still a big number. but that's one-fifth of what that said. look, we're going to have to pay a basic amount of money for national defense. you can make the case and gates has made it that we waste a lot. and we do. as far as weapons of mass

destruction, depending on wh side you're on, we spend a relatively small amount. about $20 billion a year. that sounds like a huge number. the vast majority of spending is salary, expenses, materiel, and paying for the war costs in afghanistan, 50,000 troops in europe, 35,000 troops in korea. that's where the basic amount of spending comes from. it's not from spending on an aircraft carrier. host: let's take it one step further. if you take the budget pie, what percent is defense spending, what is discretionary spending? how much is entitle spending? and where can the most significant cuts be made? guest: i hope that the speaker can make that happen. i know him only a little bit but he is a very good solid citizen so i hope he can do

that. whether he can get the ranking member or whatever it is new members of the house republican caucus to go along with it is another question. but to get your question directly. we spend about $550 billion on defense. we spend a little less on nondefense. that's $1 trillion that we spend on these so-called discretionary appropriated accounts. than when you get mad at your congressman. that's what he is voting on. the other 60% or more of the budget is on automatic pilot. including hundreds of billions of dollars a year to pay just the interest on the public debt. now, you're going to pay the public debt. you're going to pay medicare, social security and other pensions because if you don't there's going to be an uprising in the country and there's going to be some serious problems in the job market. so we can complain. but as charlie brown once said, we have met the enemy and it's

us. we encouraged people to vote over the last 30 years, republicans, democrats, independents. because if they didn't vote for these programs, they were defeated. host: john from oak ridge, tennessee with this question. guest: well, they add a great deal. if you want the specific numbers, when the congress made the decision to continue the bush tax cuts from 120 to 01 to 2003ics thigh added about 3.1 toll 3.7 trillion to the debt. they only extended them for two years but i think it is unrealistic to think that in an election year in 2012 that we're going to see a tremendous tax increase. an the repudiation of those taxes. i think those tax cuts will continue. but yes we added somewhere between 3.5 to $4 trillion to the national debt by extending those tax cuts.

host: bob is joining us from florida democrat's line. good morning. . . guest: there is no doubt that the stress on the middle class is something that most people

that do this work privately admit. if you look at the last 10-20 years, there is virtually no growth in the part of gdp that the middle class receives. if you look at the national income counts it's been stagn e stagnate. and it's hard to see a part that functions well when you have a stagnate middle class. those are the people that are affected. the squeeze on the middle class is not a theory. it's the truth. and trying to reinvigorate the middle class at the time you don't decrease the proportionate is true.

one thing that is important is that the president's agreement to reach the medicare, and there is a reason for that. they are the biggest part of problem and affect the middle class. very rich people don't worry about health care. and very poor people do have medicaid, as inefficient as it is sometimes, they have medicaid. the middle class worker does not have either. if you are 35 years old and your neighbor has lost their job and you are not sure of your job. of that 9.4 that bernanke is talking about, i hope that most realize that is a disappointing number decline from the previous month was predominantly because

people were dropping out of workforce. if you look at a broader measure of unemployment in this country. people that want to work but don't. or people that want to work full time and can't. you find that number is 17% of the workforce. we have lost 8 million jobs and replaced with 1.2 million new ones. we have a serious problem with the middle class in this country. host: "the new york times" says that 15 million people out of work in this country and you need seven to nine months to increase the growth. guest: yes, bernanke said it correctly, and analysts would say the same. we are looking at three to five year to get to unemployment levels of three years ago. host: two points, andy with this e-mail. you remember that commercial,

where is the beef. my question is where is the money. gary has this point, saying we can only reduce the deficit by cutting all government programs. what is wrong with 10% across the board. guest: in theory the 10% would be great. in fact, in 2012 you would have a brand-new congress and brand-new senate. present recipients here in america are not going to want to give up what they already have. and here is the irony, we talk about europe being so irresponsible. there are countries that have proposed 3-5% cut this is year, and we have not cut anything. host: we have anthony joining

stephen bell from the bipartisan center. caller: good morning, i have a question, and a comment. and sounds like this gentleman really has some answers. when we went to war in iraq and afghanistan, no taxes were raised. i know in world war ii and other conflicts the country got together. we are going to war and going to pay for this. nothing, instead of raising taxes to pay for it, taxes were cut. what is confusing is how are they able to justify not only going to war and not having everyone pay into what we as americans want to do. because that's technically what is going on. host: your response. guest: well, he's right. it's just a fact. we cut taxes in 2001.

and we did so in large part because of the collapse of the so-called dot-com economy. we cut taxes in 2003, we began the war in afghanistan and iraq and did not raise taxes to pay for it. and here is a funny, unfortunate thing. when the presidents of those periods asked for more money. they didn't ask for it in a regular budget submission. they asked for 10-20 hundreds of dollars and supplemental, and outside of the restraint of the process on the hill. it was designated as emergency and came up after the president had submitted. i won't argue if it was needed. but i can say the gentleman is

right. we used to criticize lyndon johns johnson, guns and butter. he wanted both. host: the senate and house today on the passing the raising the debt limit. we heard this discussion about a week ago and a number of house republicans said they would vote against, including michele balkman. what will happen? guest: the debt decrease will pass, and i don't know where senator bachman will be. she will pick up the load, these are debts we have incurred. it's people in her district that receive social security who will su suffer the most. and it will pass. and steve, what package of

spending restraint would it take to get a majority in the house and senate to vote? i fear that republicans are under the mishap and i say this as a republican. that the democrats will bail them out and say, let's help them out. there will be some democrats that vote for the debt limit. but don't forget that republicans on their own will be able to pass the debt limit. and the president has a bully pulpit. he says that i want the debt bill passed without amendment and promptly. that's not going to happen. and i can see the president get on the bully pulpit say day after day to the house

republicans, i am asking you to pass this debt limit. it will pass, it will be a painful bit, let's say it this way, a splash of cold water for the michele bauchmans in the world. thank you. next we have julie rovner from public radio, and the vote to repeal the health care bill in the house. and over the weekend, coming to the house republican leader and that will change the legislative calendar, and not a health care vote as scheduled on wednesday. and turn to the house speaker,

john boehner and what happened yesterday with six dead and the injured giffords. >> we can hear more about news when airing of the topics, including the shooting in west arizona. and the economy and the changes in the war and afghanistan. meet the press airs at noon. democratic emanuel cleaver. at 1 p.m. it's abc this week, the guest includes the chairman of the budget committee, paul ryan of wisconsin, and the ranking member congress member chris van hollen.

today we have brett barren sitting in and we have republican congresswoman cathy mcmorris rogers of washington state. and then it's state of the union, speaking with dick berbin. and next speaking to congress members and house member whip. these are brought to you by the public networks and c-span. these air at 1 p.m., and cnn's state of the union, listen to them all on c-span radio.

xm satellite radio, or go online to c-spanradio.org. >> next "newsmakers" with congressman henry waxman. with more than 80 appearances and you can use the c-span video library to learn more about the newest additions of the obama administration. just two of the thousand of people you can search and watch online at our video library. it's washington your way. >> i think news organizations have adapted. is it great that overall news organizations aren't doing much for news, but the public bears responsibility too. the public bears responsibility

of keeping themselves informed. >> tonight martha raddatz looks at the wars and afghanistan at a strategic and personal level, at 8 on c-span's "q & a." >> "washington journal" continues. >> we want to welcome back julie rovner that covers health care. thank you for being here. let's look at the changes. the changes in the medical-loss and closing the donut hole, the primary care bonus, and so-called class act, health care home care changes, and chronic disease changes and tax-free spending accounts. put this in layman's language

what it means. guest: the biggest change that consumers will see the medical-loss ratio changes. what that means that this year insurance companies will have to spend premium dollar on actual medical benefits or things related to it. and it varies on the size of the policy. for individual policies it's 80 cents of every dollar. and for larger group policies 85 cents of every dollar has to go to medical benefits. and if they don't, they have to give rebates next year. these were regulations negotiated over six months by the national association of insurance commissioners. they delivered those back and human services took them without much change and into regulations issued last december.

they are very controversial and say said there could be no more enormous profit margins, if you will for insurance companies. what sorts of payments amounted to actual medical benefits were really the decisions that had to be made there. and there is lots and lots of back and forth and negotiating. does a nurse help line count, and the answer was yes. but something that didn't count was insurance broker commissions. and now the question what happens to these insurance brokers that help small businesses find insurance plans mu . the theory in 2014 to help find insurance policies, you perhaps won't need the brokers anymore.

but a lot of insurance brokers that worry about how to go forward. that's probably the biggest change in 2011. this law is taking effect slowly and in small pieces. and another change that starts this year by regulation, if insurance companies want to make increases larger than 10%, there are rules that allow the states or federal government to examine those increases. we are having one in california where one of the larger insurance companies is proposing large premium hikes. there are ways to go back and examine if they are justified. we are seeing premium increases. a lot of debate whether that's the fault of the new law. there is every indication that it's not, that medical costs are going up. partly because medical costs

didn't go a lot in 2008-09. a lot of pent-up demand. and we see people exercising it in 2010. and a lot of increased use in 2010 and causing cost to go up and in turn premiums to go up. host: unless changes in the law, this bill will be fully implemented by 2014. guest: not fully and some del delayed further, 2018. but the big pieces that people think are connected with the law, the new insurance changes, to have insurance and the medicaid changes start in 2014. host: one key play per, henry

waxman. we talked to him last friday for c-span's "newsmakers" that airs following the "washington journal." one is the house vote scheduled for this wednesday, for repealing the house bill and what happens next. here is the response from congressman waxman. >> i think they will come at it, piecemeal and withhold money to make government enforce the law. and we need to change it but not enforce the law that means so many to people. they are making it against american people for this law, i don't believe it. and those of us who pass the law and support it, we have an educational job to do. i don't think they know the numbers that will be affected.

and in my district, there are 55,000 individuals with pre-existing conditions. if they have to buy their insurance on the individual market, they won't be able to buy it no matter how wealthy they are. there are tax credits for 15,000 small businesses and families. i think tax credits to help individuals buy insurance is a worthwhile thing and it will help people that otherwise couldn't afford it. host: that's henry waxman on "newsmakers" and the vote has been postponed. guest: i have been watching the polls on this. i was talking to a political scientist and talking about how the public is of two minds on this law. if you ask the public what they think of the law in general. it's pretty evenly split but more negative than positive.

but if you ask the public what they think of the individual pieces of the law. it's surprising on the provisions including this mandate. that many don't understand. to give up coverage and buy their own, which isn't true. if you have coverage through your job, you are fine. if you don't have coverage now, you be required to buy it or most people will get subsidies to purchase it. congressman waxman talking about pre-existing conditions, that's one of the issues of this law. many who cannot get insurance now. companies won't sell it to them. this was the compromise made, the deal-cut, if you will. the insurance companies say if you require everyone to have coverage, we will be able to sell. otherwise people wait until they are sick to get coverage. and that's not viable for the

insurance companies. there is this concern if that requirement goes away, companies won't be able to add people with pre-existing conditions. so there is this race going on, if you will. said one political scientist to me, the people who would like to see this implemented and the people that want to see it go away. and why the republicans want to rush this law, and not in the senate and president obama will veto it if it got to him. and that's the fight for the public opinion. as the small pieces take effect. you have one million-and-a-half young adults back on their parent's plans. and you have seniors in the medicare donut hole. as people see the tangible benefits of the law, it's hard to take them away. every benefit that takes affect

is someone that will disfranchised if you will. >> julie rovner covers "the beat" and we have alice from massachusetts, good morning to you. caller: good morning. i would speak to our health care in massachusetts. we have a universal health care here. and every man, woman and child is covered by our mass health. and i would like to point out that it's not a job killing bills. because we are one of the states that has pulled ourselves out of the recession. and we are even, our percentage of unemployment is lower than the national average. and our economy is booming. so i do not believe this idea that this is a job-killing bill. in fact, mr. boehner and he

spends a lot of time in sunny california, apparently not listening to his constituents. because he would hear that most people would really like to have the health care that we enjoy in massachusetts. host: thank you, alice. guest: indeed the structure of the law was based on what they have in massachusetts. which is an individual mandate. that was proposed by the then republican governor, mitt romney. that was developed in the 1980's as to what the democrats were pending the employer mandate. the one thing that has not worked that well in massachusetts, they haven't been able to hold down health care costs. that's not something you can do

at a state level. massachusetts is an expensive health care and have prestigious hospitals. it's difficult to do. and that's the argument will this law will able to bring down health costs. and no one knows and probably not. that's the big argument going forward, and the problem is no one really knows how to do that. without taking things away from people. that is going to be the difficult issue going forward. host: robert joining us from new york city, with julie rovner, thanks for waiting. caller: hi, a couple of more general points. and then maybe (inaudible) and you eluded to this earlier, someone did. it's a big philosophical divide should all of these jobs like this woman in massachusetts was saying, all the responsibility

beyond the government side. which the left tends to favor. they like government control and spending or should it be private sector. and the government or the private sector and employee more people in the government and give more control and responsibility to the government. but a lot of us don't want that, whether health care or automobiles or other things. and the other thing and the previous gentleman with the label of bipartisan, and i didn't hear anything right of center, it was all left of center. spending is almost never talked about. it's not a taxation problem, it's spending. and this idea that repealing this health care law will increase the deficit, i think as you pointed out earlier.

no, it was the republican guy pointed out earlier. only if you make the assumptions that remove all of this incredible amount of spending. and then sure, if you want to offset spending with taxes, you can do that. but if we cut spending and have smaller programs. and my final point on the health care thing. so if it's 30, 40, or even 70 million people without health care. we will need a huge overhaul of the system, and at least 80% of the population is satisfied. and we don't have to overhaul the whole system and throw into the government's hands. let's target a solution. guest: the argument about targeting the whole system was not solely because of people without insurance. but what i was talking about, that the system was so expensive

and the trajectory is more people without insurance. and the employers couldn't afford to provide this as a benefit. it was a drag on the economy and that's why addressed in the first place. host: allen joins us from tennessee. caller: thank you for taking my call. look, this health care was passed in the dishonest way possible. in the accounting for it, we looked at 10 years of revenues and only six years of expenditures. if any private company in this country did that, it would be fraud. they probably would go to jail or cpa would be stripped of their license. you talk about the insurance companies, the definition of

insurance precludes adverse selection. may want to talk about that ma'am. no claims into the pool, you can't do that. and the other interesting thing, there are $37 trillion in the program that cannot be met. it's impossible, already we have a system of government-provided health care that cannot be made, the promises can't be kept. there is not enough money. you can confiscate all the wealth of the rich people and you can't get there from here. guest: as for the claims to insurance, and if that's the case, most people couldn't get car insurance or homeowners.

but the fact is that insurance companies said if enough healthy people in the pool, they can offer insurance to people with pre-existing conditions. host: james said that you should know that this bill is to kill off private insurance, obama said it himself. is it? guest: no, if it were, there will be a single option. that's the thing that frustrating democrats about the la law. they turned themselves inside out to preserve the private industry. otherwise they would gone the single-payor route. that's why so much disclilike o the law, of those who disapprove the law, you have the people

that "a" think it didn't go far enough. host: we have julie rovner joining us as a contributor and reporter for national public radio. her beat is health care. and we have teddy joining us. caller: good morning, i think if we lived in japan or germany or france, where most people look-a-like. they are mostly homogeneous societies, we wouldn't have this conversation. and they are fighting against something that should benefit everyone. but my question to the lady is, what do you think will happen to health care in this country if this bill is not funded? or if they repeal this health care bill? don't you think, i mean, it will

throw our health care in a tumble? i mean everyone to my mind should have medicare. medicare should be for everyone. and i believe that everyone has a right to health care in this country. and i think we can afford to do it if we pay for it with increase in taxes. people have to pay taxes in this country. if you want the benefit of this country, you have to pay taxes to keep it going. host: to teddy's point, we have this comment from carol. guest: it did pass almost exclusively bipartisan lines. there were hours of debate. and many amendments. although the republicans said that a lot of republican amendments disappeared before it got to the floor. and at the end was the senate

bill, and that senate bill was rewritten. and no hearings on the senate bill that was passed. there is a little reality check on both sides of that. and the other hand, one earlier caller got it right, this is a long philosophical debate about the role of government and health care. and the society has had a difficult way to make up their mind. and we are 50-50. half government funded and half private funded. and we haven't been able to resolve this, how much government we want running our health care. and that's the source of dispute. and why it came to head during the passage of this particular law. that tilts towards more government regulation but of a private system. so this law is how much will we

tilt at that 50-50 point. a little more and less. and why so much tempers are flaring. it's not a government take over of a health care system, but has more government regulation keep

plan in place. so there were a lot of companies did some changes in order to lock in going forward. and i think there were some changes around that. and some cases companies blamed, unfairly blamed the health care law for some changes they made. it's hard to know unless you see the individual changes. in a lot of cases some changes were made. generally the changes that were made, the increases that were made, had to do with new benefits offered. some people were paying more and getting new benefits. and in some cases companies were blaming the law unfairly, and

some companies going forward and keep in perpetuity. host: dennis says this. so you have the increase of more people getting health care and more seeing the premiums going up. guest: yeah, it was unfortunate that the law was being implemented as there were a lot of increases last year. that would have happened anyway. regardless if the law had passed or not. because of the slow down in 2008. we just got the 2009 health numbers last week, and showed the slowest increase of health spending in the 50 years that the government has been keeping track of it. because so many people lost their job and insurance in 2008

and 2009, and saw an enormous slow down in the use of health services. and i think what happened in 2010, according to a lot of experts. that pent up demand meant that more people were getting more health services. when you see that increase in utilization, health insurers have no choice but to boost their premium. and that has nothing to do with the new law. but when you add that to the small increases due to the new law. and then you see big increases, hey, this law passed and one must be due to the other. where in fact it's not. host: we are talking about health care rules that was passed last march by the president. we have rhonda joining us from georgia. caller: good morning, thank you for taking my call.

julia, i love your work. i want to comment on the insurance claims of not insuring people with pre-existing conditions because of how they would have to increase premiums and so on. my mother has a pre-existing condition. what the insurance industry is not telling the public when they make these comments. is that most policies have a provision for to

say i have been working for the last 22 years at the same place. every year they have worked my health insurance premium has gone up. and the deductions they have taken from my paycheck has gone up. to the caller in new york, the difference between the government-run program and the private sector. the government-run program has to answer to the public. whereas the private sect does that. host: is that correct? guest: yeah, basically.

as i said this is an ongoing argument for almost 100 years. does the private sector do better or the government. it's not going to be resolved soon. which is the better way to run the health insurances. host: scott sends in this tweet. guest: well i think what the caller is referring to. and this is a sticky subject. one of the provisions that went into effect last year is a limit on lifetime and annual benefit caps. now the lifetime caps are something that most people are not aware they have. unless they have someone with a very expensive illness. there were plans that had lifetime caps of several million dollars. typically two, fgiffords.

and nine-year-old gave zimmerman, the outreach and three senior citizens. those six killed yesterday. 13 others injured. and within the last hour, the

speaker of the house, john boehner in ohio, for the first time speaking on camera of what happened in tucson. >> good morning, the thoughts and prayers of the house and nation are with congress giffords and her family. and we are praying for the families of judge roll and all of those taken from us yesterday so senselessly. among the fallen is zimmerman, a member of giffords staff. and i have asked that the flags are flown at half staff in honor of gabe zimerman. attacks of those who serve have no place in our society. i want to commend the federal, state and local officials as well as the capitol police for all of their efforts.

and i told the f.b.i. director that the house stands ready to assist in any way possible. last night the majority leader announced that the normal business of the house in the coming week has been postponed to take necessary action of yesterday's events. to the members of the house and their staff, i ask that you on this sabbath day that we keep gabby and her staff in our thoughts and prayers. public service is a high honor. but these tragic events remind us that all of us in our roles of service to our fellow citizens comes with a risk. this inhuman act should not prevent us

host: maryann is joining us from atlanta. caller: yes, good morning, i am a little nervous. and when you hear limbaugh say that the democrats are bastards

and when you hear what is said about the second amendment. what do they expect unnormal people to do? i think this is brought on by the republicans. host: we look at a headline from the l. a. times and the seen last night in tucson. go ahead, david, you are on the air. we go to matthew next who is joining us from wales in the u.k. caller: thank you, condolences, it's very unfortunate what has taken place. and from naivety. what i understand that the u.s. has tried for years to put proper gun control forward. and people say yeah, we have

inalienable rights to bear arms. and that's well, but at the end of the day when your own politician is getting shot at. and the government needs to look at the term inalienable and take down the issue, you have a military and no need for everyone to bear arms because you have militia. which was the reason to bear arms in the first place. thank you for that. host: thank you for the call. margaret is joining us on the republican law from georgia. good morning, margaret. caller: hello, good morning. i was going -- trying to get in whenever the lady from npr was on. i was going to ask her if it was she or who it was that said they hoped that cheney died of cancer. and she had to do with health

services. so i just wondered if it was her. host: julia rovner had said that? caller: no, i was wondering if she was the one that said it. i heard someone, some lady say that they hope that dick cheney had a very painful death from cancer. host: he's not battling cancer. he's suffering from a heart condition. let's go back to the situation that happened yesterday in tucson, arizona. in a statement from john mccain, said yesterday.

host: back to your calls. jesse from michigan, good morning. caller: good morning, steve. host: good morning. caller: yes, what i want to say, the republicans have these things happen and they say, well, it happens on both sides. when bush was in office, and (inaudible) getting from the left going out and killing anybody. they always pulled that game, yeah, it happens on both sides. but listen, what they call on the left is people that demonstrate against wars or civil rights. that's what they call the left. the right is called (inaudible)

and this woman with a hood on her head. that's what republicans do. don't let them pull this out, yeah, both sides do. no, the democrats, who got killed then. bush was a war criminal and that's people's approach. host: the flag at half staff and those killed yesterday. you heard from speaker boehner, and the vote on health care bill has been changed and will be postponed later in the month. but will not take place on wednesday. the senate on recess this week and next. we have glenn joining us from california. good morning. caller: my thoughts go out to the victims of this shooting. and i am sorry, america, but it's all of our fault. it's not just the republicans or the democrats. it's all of our fault. we let it come to this. think about it. just think about it.

have a good day. host: the headlines in the british times, dispatch tragedy, using the words of richmond from the area. next caller. caller: thank you c-span for all you do. i as a republican am incensed and appalled to what happened. i think what goes on is adding fuel to fire. when i was in england last year, michael savage, that was a rebel rouser was not permitted to be on the radio. i think we should start respecting the office of the president. republicans who i was or am, i still haven't decided. for civility. this is unconscionable.

this young man, deranged as he was, was drawn there like people like that sarah palin. on her website, she had -- i don't know exactly the name. but it was something to draw attention to the seat that this young lady occupied. same thing with the so-called people who are members of this tea party. that is a republican-backed group. thank you. and keep up the good work. host: thank you, from the miami herald. frank is joining us from london, kentucky, good morning. caller: and how are you this morning? host: fine, thank you. caller: it's cold down here. the reason i am calling, well, where i start. everyone knows that people get

out here. i am a disabled coal miner. and i am not educated. but if anybody gets out here and watches fox news with glenn beck and hear rush, and a few more. unbalanced people there. and then you take people that are not very smart anyway. and they just get it in their head right here, that's what i got to do to be great like glenn beck. and we need to sell more gold, and you know. and with hannity and all of this. it's just a disgrace that america has come to that. host: we will go to phillip in virginia. the headline from the daily news, blood bath in arizona. caller: i would like to send my condolences to the victims of

this deadly event. i would like to address the caller from london, referring to our gun rights. and i feel that has nothing to do with this situation. we will always have our second amendment right to bear arms. it's in the constitution. i don't think that no matter how bad the situation. host: in the headline, those shot in tucson. and the bloodshed of new focus on those in congress. good morning to ann. yes, you are on the air, turn the volume down. caller: i am a woman from michigan, why don't you cut these democrats off when they call in on every line. and as far as the press, not the facts and this was a dope smoking young man that was mentally ill.

and all of these people call in, and c-span is losing credibility because the democrats call on every line. host: you got in and this is your chance to weigh in. caller: (inaudible) get out and get a real job. host: we missed the first part. caller: the woman who spoke from npr and speaking of government-controlled radio and needs to get a real job like the rest of us do. host: ok, and to virginia, good morning. caller: good morning, we need to look at the history of the world. every situation of the world that has disarmed their people, have always slaughtered them. the government has taken over this debate. if that had not been a member of the government. it would have been another murder on the back page